Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

…that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society…

Of course, for you, there will be.

You're confusing me with comrade Strawman again. But like I said a while back 'discussing' with you is a waste of my time.

It's not a strawman – you won't have the proletariat electing the truth, because you claim that you know the physical, and that you can know this without a vote.And you think scientists and academics are the only ones capable of this, but not society as a whole.Since you won't discuss this, because you fear the political results, you pretend my questions of you are 'a waste of time'.I'm wary of those who claim to want socialism, but won't allow physics to be under our control. What have the elitists, like you, got to hide from us?This is a question of power.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

you won't have the proletariat electing the truth, because you claim that you know the physical, and that you can know this without a vote.

So what makes the above statement true, in the abscence of a vote?But we're digressing and we've been here a million times before… I'm out of here.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

you won't have the proletariat electing the truth, because you claim that you know the physical, and that you can know this without a vote.

So what makes the above statement true, in the abscence of a vote?

It isn't. It will only be true when the proletariat has developed its own consciousness of its own power, and takes the vote into its own hands. That's the role of socialists, to try to help build the confidence of the proletariat.You wouldn't know that, because your faith is placed in physicists and academics, whose authority you quote, in keeping democratic control out the hands of the organised working class, when dealing with knowledge production. You undermine workers' belief in their own abilities.

DJP wrote:

But we're digressing and we've been here a million times before… I'm out of here.

You, once again, argue that I'm 'strawmanning' you, and you've done worse before, in insults.But you won't discuss.Why not just admit your ignorance in these political issues about the social production of knowledge, and stop insulting me, and running away?Or give up trying to participate in discussions about 'power' and the politics of knowledge?

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Hud955]

I've always thought the distinction made by many anarchists between the state and the government is a good one.  The state is far wider than the government, and some parts of the state, under some circumstances can have a separate existence from it.  The SPGB talks about taking control of the state through the ballot box.  What this means, strictly, is taking control of the government machinery.  If the military and other coercive forces of the state choose not to accept government control by socialists, then the chances of the revolution being successful are much reduced and taking control of the government of minor significance .As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution.  That to me is a much more important part of the argument.  If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential.  Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.     

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well LBird, it looks as though no members of the SPGB here want to discuss the points raised by either of us regarding the transformation or abolition of "the state", in the event of a successful socialist.Oh well, such a shame, especially as some bright spark stated that my points would be destroyed by the collective "we", as if I were an enemy. When in fact I'm here to learn.Anyway, I agree that there would need to be some democratic "authority" under socialism. How else would society be able to protect itself from rapists, paedos and the like. I'm not some idealist who thinks a socialist revolution would bring about a perfect society of love and harmony.I followed the previous discussions of yours regarding democracy and how far it should extend. So seeing as it is a related topic, I was hoping you could put some meat on the bones regarding how you see such extensive democracy functioning? 

It seems you are being a bit premature here "no members of the SPGB here want to discuss the points raised by either of us regarding the transformation or abolition of "the state", in the event of a successful socialist."  Indeed we are still here pondering on the OP.   And still learning I may add! To stimulate the discussion further it would serve a useful purpose if you would kindly draw up a list of the agreements and disagreements.  Or I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution.  That to me is a much more important part of the argument.  If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential.  Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.     

You seem to be agreeing with what I said earlier, Hud, about the 'twin-track' approach, of a major track of Workers' Councils and a minor track of (what I've called) 'Parliamentary Suicide'. The latter is merely a way of 'legitimising' the revolutionary process in the eyes of state officials and those loyal to bourgeois democracy. Of course, our legitimacy comes from our own democratic theory and practice.'Useful, but inessential' just about covers the minor track. It can ease the way for those wanting to remain loyal to bourgeois forms and who are opposed to a military coup, but any coup which manifests will have to be put down by force of arms, hopefully with the help of those military officers who wish to remain democrats.And a 'new administration system', which has emerged from democratic activity by workers, would seem to be, not only easier, but preferable and better.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?

And provide you with an opportunity to go off-topic.  No thanks.

[Brian]

Hud955 wrote:

As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution.  That to me is a much more important part of the argument.  If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential.  Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.     

Not just workplace organisation but also the community working in conjunction with the production and distribution units. If there is a need for a new administrative system it will depend on how localised each and every community wants to be.  For instance, housing at present is a mismatch of council, HAs and private.  In socialism all housing would become common ownership and come under the democratic control of the local community.  It follows the local community would set Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to cover improvements, internal fittings, repairs and extensions. To bring such a service into operation could mean that Housing becomes devolved down to the town, village or even estate level so that its adminstration is aligned directly to local control.In my estimation implimenting a HQS at a local community level would be more efficient and pro-active for the admin and producers are on site dealing with any problems as they arise.  Yes imo housing would be a candidate for a new adminstrative system.  But not so sure that other services would require restructuring to such an extent.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?

And provide you with an opportunity to go off-topic.  No thanks.

The topic is about politics, Brian. There is politics in education. Or is thinking about politics now off-topic in the SPGB? You seem to like the phrase off-topic. What are you hiding?

[Hud955]

Hi BrianI'd certainly agree to the need for both workplace and community organisation, but I don't like to go very far down this road in the matter of detail.  I'm happy to leave that to evolve socially when it starts to become a real issue for a growing socialist majority. My suspicion, though, is that a socialist society would evolve ways of thinking about social organisation that are quite alien to our own. I suspect, for instance, that the community would be far more individualistic than most of us are at present preparted to contemplate.  A strong sense of social cohesion and an ethos of individualism are mutually reinforcing, not opposites.  On the issue you raise, informal social norms will always arise, but within them, it seems reasonable that individuals would be left to determine the quality of their own home.  Personally I only see a layer of organisation existing to establish a 'Housing Quality Standard' in situations of limited resources, when the limit would be an upper rather than lower one.  This is all  crystal ball gazing, of course, and we shall have to wait and see.  In speculating about this kind of thing, though, I think we will come closer to what might actually evolve if we imagine a future that is well outside the format set by capitalism, A strong administration would be particularly needful in the early days to organise  social recovery from the problems created by our own far from egalitarian society.  Beyond that though, I would guess that administrative structures would become weaker and more informal as time went on.  Capturing political power would in my view be of secondary importance to reworking social relationships in these kinds of ways.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps another long standing member can explain when this anarchist-like fear of the 'state' snuck into the SPGB? I have to admit that  the talk of 'dismantle'  'abolish' is a little confusing, and when did we advocate 'workers councils' ?The State will not be 'abolished' or dismantled but will be taken over and used to abolish and dismantle the economic and social conditions that give rise to the need for a state.Surely that is our position until we change our DofP 6 fromin order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation to:in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be dismantled or abolished. Why should a vast majority in control of the State fear the actions of the state?  

[Brian]

.

[Brian]

Vin wrote:

Perhaps another long standing member can explain when this anarchist-like fear of the 'state' snuck into the SPGB? I have to admit that  the talk of 'dismantle'  'abolish' is a little confusing, and when did we advocate 'workers councils' ?The State will not be 'abolished' or dismantled but will be taken over and used to abolish and dismantle the economic and social conditions that give rise to the need for a state.Surely that is our position until we change our DofP 6 fromin order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation to:in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be dismantled or abolished. Why should a vast majority in control of the State fear the actions of the state?  

The state is the executive of a minority.  That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that the state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.

[Author]

Posts